Laid-back Bush leaves it to TV ads

Al Gore may be coming back. Down just a few days ago by 5-7 points in most US polls, he shows signs of surging back into contention, narrowing the Bush lead to three points or less in three national polls and tied dead even in three others.

Gore, relentlessly aggressive, is savaging Bush's record as Texas governor every night in television ads in all swing states while the Republican candidate runs soft ads about his commitment to better education. Capitalising on Bush's overconfidence, the Democrat is making this a close race again.

George W. Bush has a tendency to take his victory lap too early. Too soon, he amasses a lead and starts to jog around the track expecting the cheers of the crowd. Over-confidence gripped him before and during the Republican convention.

He chose Richard Cheney as his running mate during this period, when it seemed that he could choose anyone and keep his lead. Instead, Gore used his selection of the first Jewish candidate, Joe Lieberman, as his vice-president to begin to catch up and surge in front.

Now, buoyed by a good performance in the presidential debates he was supposed to lose, Bush seems to be letting up too early, switching to soft media at the time he needs to turn it up a notch to stay ahead of the surging Democrat. While Gore relentlessly pounds on Bush's shortcomings in Texas, the Republican seems to be too complacent and laid back.

Gore may well have latched on to the issue that he can use to eat up the Bush lead: Medicare. Since Bush proposes to take the money Gore would spend shoring up the system that provides health care to the elderly and use it for a tax cut, the Republican is highly vulnerable to Democratic attack on the issue.

It is axiomatic that, in a political contest, you should use your advertising to attack the opponent and let your candidate stay on the high road. During the debates Gore led the attack, slashing away at Bush. He seemed obnoxious, overbearing, and boorish.

The election now boils down to an exchange of advertisements. In the ads Gore can make the points he failed to make in the debates. So what if voters don't like the announcer who delivers the message? The candidate can keep his hands clean while the advertisement guts his opponent. Gore, who failed to win the debates, may be winning the post-debate advertising.

In the opinion of many the contest is between a candidate who isn't up to it (Bush) and a candidate who doesn't get it (Gore). In my own opinion, it is between two good men, either of whom would be a fine president. In any case, the similarity of the candidates - each trying to hug the centre - makes it a very volatile race, with the lead seeming to change hands every few weeks.

The volatility, in part, stems from a virtual consensus among American voters. The vast majority feel that Bush is the better person but they agree more with Gore on the issues. They admire Bush's character, integrity, and persona more than they do Gore's.

They report that Bush is more "likable" than Gore but tend to see Gore as the better person to address such American needs as social security reform, Medicare, gun control, education, and the environment.

With this kind of split in the minds of most voters, a lead of a few points is most unstable. For all practical purposes, this race is tied and is likely to remain so until the bitter end. This contest is shaping up as one of the closest in US history. And the most exciting.

 Dick Morris was chief strategist for Bill Clinton in his 1996 re-election campaign. He now heads www.vote.co.uk.